Player driven End Game

franksalbe · October 2009

Is designing a MMO who progression towards an end game that slowly leads to a fully Player driven End Game Experience both in economics and character advancement possible?

My thoughts on this concept would include a steady progression to an all in game equipment, housing, transportation being player created (for the advanced end game content).

From the character advancement point of view: new skills would be player created and taught, attribute progression would be determined not on how much you kill but more on what or who you kill. I mean practice alone does not make you better, you should have some challenges you need to overcome to advance which is more worthwhile then just repetition.

Shouldn't the end game content lead well to something game ending sort of. By this I mean that in order for the Player community to truly reach a sort of game altering ending . The player community as a whole must reach a certain level of advanced player created content to unlock game altering events which in term affects the next expansion meaningfully.

Example: Unlock End game event by doing the following:

40% of Player community have created and trained in the most powerful skills possible.

50% of Player community have created and are experienced in using the most advanced elite equipment.

60% of the Player community has passed a certain arbitrary point in their character progression.

What do these percentages represent in this example? They represent a certain amount of heroic level players skilled enough to actually have a chance at surviving the End Game content. I use the word survive because at such a level that is all any person should be able to do survive it . This is the kind of thing that legends are made of. Spells, equipment, locations, are renamed after players in the expansion base on Contribution towards the End Game Content.

Let me know what you think..

dstar. · October 2009

Yea it would work but noone would want it except for the small vocal community on these forums.

Nemorsa · October 2009

Seems to me that this would appeal to most people, and not just a small portion.

Teala · October 2009

I think you have a good ideal, it's implamenting it and making it actually enjoyable by the players that's the trick. If players find it combersome and not worth doing, then why bother and if you make it so that you must rely on other players for certain things, you better have a good system in place(like incentives) to use player driven content.

For instance. A player owns a ship or boat. It is faster to take his boat to get from point a to point b. However, there is also riding your horse. May take a little longer, and be more dangerous, but it will not cost you nothing. You could use an NPC driven boat. This will cost you more, and take a wee bit more time than the player driven boat - but it is available if no player driven boat is. With the player driven boat, it cost less, and takes less time. Incentive to the player for operating such a boat. They get paid and gain exp that can go toward getting better at skippering boats. Or maybe they are hauling a load of supplies up river or wherever and they can haul you along with the supplies and make a little extra gold and exp. There are lots of ways to handle it.

sneef · October 2009

it sounds appealing when you say it like that but really all you are doing is creating an event after x amount of time has passed

aleos · October 2009

But they are handing jedis out for free.

Cephus404 · October 2009

All of those will just stop people from creating alts. If you have to have 40-60% overall at a certain point, every time anyone starts a new character, they're skewing the percentages. Every time a new player starts the game, it makes it harder to ever get that end-game event. So either the game becomes static with no new players and no new alts or the even never happens.

Seems pointless and self-defeating to me.

Axehilt · October 2009

Teala's idea seems a little more solid, as it cautiously deals with the high potential likelihood of not having enough players playing the game to run all "jobs". That was my initial concern.

After thinking about it, my initial concern dematerialized as I realized there are actually quite a few games with very player-driven endgames currently. Even games where everything is player-created.

Which led to my other concern of the sheer amount of players wanting to sell goods/services. The Wyvern Dude in WOW may have a monopoly on travel, but at least it's just one NPC - a game with pure player-created-endgame would have to worry about having 6 different Wyvern NPCs spammed across the disorganized player-created city. Basically it seems like a player-centric game like that needs some form of order imposed upon the game (probably with the mechanics associated with each service; a quick example being that you couldn't place your Wyvern Dude within x distance of another Wyvern Dude.)

franksalbe · October 2009

Your insight does make sense in that boat analogy.

The incentive in player driven content has to be that player content is the best option for the player community in order to prosper. To many games have failed in this area with player content because they make player content sub par to in game quest items.

Which would bring up the question: Why would you think would waste their time in making sub par equipment?!?

PVP which is the combat aspect of player advancement should be a rewarding and challenging experience. Hence the reasoning on advancement through quality then quantity. I should see my skill improve more consistent when I defeat roughly equal or higher skilled players then I would killing 100 lower skilled players. This type of advancement gives you a whole new depth of experiences and rewards.

PVP should be extended to non combat advancement as well to further enrich the player vs player experience. Introduction of puzzle solving would be a good example. An array of in game advancement beyond hack and slash is possible which involve interactin with other players.

Multi player created equipment would be interesting. Where an item has to be enhanced by several players to get the final product and upon a successfully completing the item all involved would get a bonus in the advancement of their skills.

These are all great but End Game should be what is End Game. To many of the gaming industry dont plan enough for expansions to make them truly exciting or next level stuff beyond a level cap increase. All End Game content should be to support of the End Game players on reaching the the End Game content which unlocks the next Expansion.

As expansion are released they should be designed to allow players to explore new aspects of the game in terms of skill weaving, equipment manufacturing and interactive competition with each other. You drop old skills no longer needed and learn new ones to meet the new challenges. You hand down equipment and skills to new players to help them advance.

You interlock expansions so that End Game Players all of a sudden become these array of traveling players cross through the content of the various expansions. Allowing them to interact with newer players and also given new players a glimpse of what awaits them in the future.

The interlocking of content is another problem also. The more expansions created the more the content should be interlocked with other previous expansions. Why would force the End Game players to have to play in only one section of the game as the new End Game content. Add new stuff to the previous expansions in order to have them intermingle with ALL level of players something that is really missing in alot of MMO.

I think this was a weakness in Warhammer. The Tier system was great but there was no reason for me to mingle with new players. I thinking End Game content should be spread across the various "levels" of content in a game.

For example : In Warhammer it would have been great if End Game content need Tier 4 Players to Join up with Tier 1,2 and 3 players to unlock certain dimensions of the game. You would be able to recruit new folks to your guild, get them excited about end game content and emerse everyone in the game. It was a shame because if any one has played Warhammer. You are well aware that you miss out on a PLETHERA of game content in Tier 1, 2, and 3, because the level of progression is so quick through PVP and some questing that you end up leveling up so quick you dont need to explore almost 2/3 of each of these Tiers.

WHAT A WASTE of coding that was.

franksalbe · October 2009

I hear you on that Axe when it comes to services of transportation that is fixed to key locations. I would think a game of this magnitude would need to make some kind of limitation on how many can be created or at least how quickly. I would think the best way would be Guild owned and only after you have reached a certain level of experience, but not experience in terms of XP for killing stuff and questing. I am think experience in terms of traveling. Something where 70% of your guild needs to have explored 70% of the world. Only then can your guildmates get together and build mass transport as you have accumulated enough knowledge of the world and traveling with in it.

The transports can be between other guilds of similar experience and alignment and Major NPC cities of same alignment. That would keep this type of structure more organized, it would make guild halls HUBS for Players which is a Great socializing mechanism.

I have not played EVE much beyond the trial version, but I do have a strong feeling that as time progress more MMO's will flock to this format (i hope). Having a few massive world servers (100K+ players) would go along way in a game which is heavily Player Driven at end game level that way you would not have such a hard time find content in terms of trainers, makers, and shakers.

heremypet · October 2009

Originally posted by franksalbe

you should have some challenges you need to overcome to advance which is more worthwhile then just repetition.

Sounds great, like tiers maybe, where you need to complete a special event to advance otherwise you can't continue in that area. Something like that would really break up the monotony of grinding.

Vanguard had this for its crafting sphere, you had to earn a special title before you could learn the next tier recipes. Same thing for cross-cultural recipes. Too bad they couldn't make each piece in a set of armor the same color haha

franksalbe · October 2009

Something close to that heremypet.

I would like to see something more organic in terms of that by progressively overcoming harder challenges you earn the right to don one these said titles which in terms give you a real value boost to your skills and attributes. Rather then be a construct put place that held you back.

You should not need a Title or level for that matter to progress to the next level, rather by continuous progression you unlock these said titles which give you a boost. This is a more Positive enriching reward system.

For instance in Warhammer when you level you get the ding and that sound (pre-conditioned training) urges you to run back to the trainer to get new skills and then you back again to whatever you were doing till you hit the next level. Now. They also have a Title system (which sad to say is empty flavor text) which you get from accomplishing various goals, Treasure hunting, PVP, PVE, Puzzles (sorta), etc. They have quite a robust system of titles and the means of achieving these titles.

Leaving all other mechanics AS IS in Warhammer. If my progression was based on me achieving these titles which "boosted" my avatar's skills and attributes accordingly as if I was leveling. What you get is a reward system where progression is based on accomplishments and not repetition. This would also lead to a great deal of variety in avatars (which is much need in the game). This in its own right would be a sort of Player driven content. Skills associated with accomplishing a goal is better then just being arbitrarily assigned. There are skills in game which are just plain crap. If you don't want it don't go for that achievement fine you don't have to and it is is not forced upon you. Would this imbalance the PVP of the game. No, as you are not locking the player from any given skills or attribute they are all still out there. Instead you are allowing them to develop their avatar as they see fit. If some skill you find at the end you do need to improve your PVP, you can go back and work through the process of gaining that achievement. You can Mix and Match skills as you see fit based on what you want and still be able to progress to a specific model of the 3 available branches each class receives. All I am doing is changing the focus from grinding till your level to Playing the game and progressing along the way.

This would 1. have players exploring all the content of the game not for just the sake of killing more stuff but because there is something at the end of it they truly want to achieve and will add to their avatar. 2. PVE experience in Warhammer would be greatly increased as there is true reasons why you want to go through the rich content they so painstakingly created. You progression and advancement is based more on your knowledge and experience in the game, and actually PLAYING the game then just leveling.

Unknown · October 2009

I certainly agree with the concept of the player driven endgame, even if I don't agree with all of your ideas. I find myself concerned about players creating their own spells, but certainly like the idea of new areas opening when x% (or x # if you want to counter the alt factor explained earlier) has completed defined content. Ultimately, I think it takes deep sandbox concepts mixed with good old wowish gameplay to achieve the right balance.

Axehilt · October 2009

Frank the problem with that is you're manhandling the player's experience.

If I gain specific types of advancement from specific Achievements in a game, I have no choice: if I want Fireball 8 I have to grind those Fire Murlocs. I hate Fire Murlocs!

The better way is just to put XP reward on Achievements, and let the player be in control of where he wants to go to advance his character. XP is generic - you don't need to get the Fire Murloc achievement for Fireball 8, you can get any Achievement and it'll give you the XP you need for Fireball 8.

A hybrid of the two would be classifying each Achievement. So an Achievement gives you XP, but if you complete 3 of the 10 "Kill these Fire creatures" achievements you get Fireball 8. Still mandhandles the player a little in terms of what he has to do to progress, but now you can choose to avoid the Kill Fire Murlocs achievement in favor of the other fire creatures.

franksalbe · October 2009

I agree with points brought up in the last 2 post to certain extents

Spell creation I view as not something complete new created by the player but more Rare spells that are available only through creating them. They don't fall into a skill tree that you can just grind till you have enough XP. These spells would be more dedicated to unlocking the End Game content.

Achievements don't have to be grinding fest that is the whole point. The achievements are wide spread across a broad spectrum of activities. I use Warhammer examples because it was the last most recent game i played.

Achievements were earned by , pvp questing, pvp grinding (x amount killing), pve questing, pve grinding, exploration, completing equipment sets, creating items, special events, etc. You can spread them over many different aspects of the game so that it is not about grinding.

Plasuma!!! · October 2009

Originally posted by franksalbe

... you should have some challenges you need to overcome...

>implied carrot-on-a-stick

There's your problem right there.

You're on your way to designing a linear gameplay mechanic. Continue? Y/N

franksalbe · October 2009

I am not sure what you mean by "linear gameplay mechanic". Any type of interaction with another player which turns out to be challenging whether it's from pvp combat all the way to player specific created items can be challenging. Does that still fall into linear gamplay mechanic?

Or

Are you assuming that the only challenging type of gameplay has to come from predetermined events implemented into the game by the developer?

If so

That is not what we are discussing. We are trying to see if it is viable to develop a MMO who's End Game content is created mostly by Players, not all of the content but a good portion.

I don't want to suggest an all Sandbox approach either. Like a previous post suggested something in the realm of a mixed salad bowl of gameplay.

Hyanmen · October 2009

Meeeh, it kinda sucks. Say you're long past the point that would unlock more content, but 10% of the players still need to get there so you can progress. I wouldn't like that.

franksalbe · October 2009

Hyanmen

Isn't that what we do know? I am not sure if I have ever played an MMO where you have to rely on others whether it's a certain percentage of a population to a small as your own guild to level to a certain point so that you can continue on to the next level of in game content.

At least this mechanic creates a genuine sense of urge to go back and interact with new members to progress the game further. Which in return helps you progress your character as well. The concept of Player Driven is to remove at lot of the pre existing barrier which herd you in one particular direction.

Warhammer Online would have benefitted with a mechanic which added value to your character if you were able to go back in Tiers to group with new players and explore places you missed the first time around. Like all games you can make an ALT but what are the chances that you will not run through the exact same content as before because it is familiar and will give you the exp and level you need to progress. Rarely do you travel to new content even with an alt because there is no need or the reward is the same no matter which part of the content in game you finish. That is one of the problems we all have experienced.

I think as a community we make it too easy for developers to hash up some mediocre game add some sparkles on the same old concept and spend our money for the next 6 months only to end up cancelling our subs and hating on the game.

Interesting · October 2009

If if

Interesting · October 2009

If I play for x hours and reach a point where I cant progress anymore (get more power) just because I have to wait for hundreds of other players to reach the point where am I just so the "content" can be "unlocked", then I dislike the idea.

What I want is a game where I can progress indefinatelly, independently of others, with no caps or no reachable caps in less than 500 hours spent of time and effort in the game.

lynks · October 2009

the closest thing to this i can recall at this time in the morning is EvE

Hyanmen · October 2009

Originally posted by franksalbe

Hyanmen
Isn't that what we do know? I am not sure if I have ever played an MMO where you have to rely on others whether it's a certain percentage of a population to a small as your own guild to level to a certain point so that you can continue on to the next level of in game content.

Hmm, no, that's not what I've done, frankly.

There were no 'stages', you could do everything right from the start of getting to endgame. I didn't have to wait for anyone.

Howdy, Stranger!

Player driven End Game

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Player driven End Game

Comments